06-07-2013, 07:17 PM
Can we calm down a bit?
Just a little.
Thanks.
My book is not about Manson. Its not about cults and the CIA. Its not about Anton Levey. Or Altamont.
My book is about Bugliosi and Tom Hanks and how they molded something important and powerful, namely JFK's assassination, into first, a revival of the WC, and then a reality show.And its about what that means in terms of the movie business today.
My discussion of Helter Skelter goes only as far as to show that the popular mythology about the Tate/LaBianca murders is wrong. And that Bugliosi had a prime and large role in spawning it.
My job is not to solve that case. Sorry. I think JFK, RFK and MLK is plenty for one guy to do. Don't you think so? I sure as heck do.
My job is only to show how what VInce did in that case is as flawed as what he did in Reclaiming History. I don't want to go interview Manson, Watson, Van Houten, Irving Kanarek, Steve Kaye, Lynette Fromme, Brentley and CHambers, the two guys who broke the case with the Hinman murder. Neither do I want to issue FOIAs into the backgrounds of all those people.Neither do I want to go back and review the Watson and Manson trial transcripts. Or go to the Sacramento Archives for their batch of materials.
And to try and solve that case, that is what I would have to do. Just for starters. Because that is the way I work. I don't take any one person's view, be it Mae Brussell, or Shreck, or Sanders, or Adam Gorightly, or Levey--who was really a showman--or John Judge. I understand how that kind of work is not nearly inclusive enough. I liked Mae's work, but she did almost everything through newspapers and magazines and books etc. She was never a field investigator or archive researcher. I know this firsthand since, because of the late Tom Davis, I am one of the very few people who worked out of her archives after she died. And to me, that approach, although you can use it, its not wide enough. At least not to figure out any complex case. You have to supplement it with other methods. Which I do. So if someone else wants to try and do all that--then fine. Go ahead. (And by the way, Shreck has a very long section on the whole Manson was Thetan issue. Its very interesting how it got started.)
So excuse me if I don't join up with Gorightly and John Judge and The Shadow over Santa Susana on this right now. That was never my intent. My intent is to show how this reflects on VB. That is it. And that is quite good enough for my limited purposes.
Just a little.
Thanks.
My book is not about Manson. Its not about cults and the CIA. Its not about Anton Levey. Or Altamont.
My book is about Bugliosi and Tom Hanks and how they molded something important and powerful, namely JFK's assassination, into first, a revival of the WC, and then a reality show.And its about what that means in terms of the movie business today.
My discussion of Helter Skelter goes only as far as to show that the popular mythology about the Tate/LaBianca murders is wrong. And that Bugliosi had a prime and large role in spawning it.
My job is not to solve that case. Sorry. I think JFK, RFK and MLK is plenty for one guy to do. Don't you think so? I sure as heck do.
My job is only to show how what VInce did in that case is as flawed as what he did in Reclaiming History. I don't want to go interview Manson, Watson, Van Houten, Irving Kanarek, Steve Kaye, Lynette Fromme, Brentley and CHambers, the two guys who broke the case with the Hinman murder. Neither do I want to issue FOIAs into the backgrounds of all those people.Neither do I want to go back and review the Watson and Manson trial transcripts. Or go to the Sacramento Archives for their batch of materials.
And to try and solve that case, that is what I would have to do. Just for starters. Because that is the way I work. I don't take any one person's view, be it Mae Brussell, or Shreck, or Sanders, or Adam Gorightly, or Levey--who was really a showman--or John Judge. I understand how that kind of work is not nearly inclusive enough. I liked Mae's work, but she did almost everything through newspapers and magazines and books etc. She was never a field investigator or archive researcher. I know this firsthand since, because of the late Tom Davis, I am one of the very few people who worked out of her archives after she died. And to me, that approach, although you can use it, its not wide enough. At least not to figure out any complex case. You have to supplement it with other methods. Which I do. So if someone else wants to try and do all that--then fine. Go ahead. (And by the way, Shreck has a very long section on the whole Manson was Thetan issue. Its very interesting how it got started.)
So excuse me if I don't join up with Gorightly and John Judge and The Shadow over Santa Susana on this right now. That was never my intent. My intent is to show how this reflects on VB. That is it. And that is quite good enough for my limited purposes.